Why The Tyrants Want Your Guns 6th Issue Infowars Magazine

OBAMA TEAMS UP WITH FOREIGN
MEDIA AND GOVERNMENTS TO
DESTROY SECOND AMENDMENT
Russian, Chinese, British, Australian talking heads attack Second Amendment
Paul Joseph Watson
WHAT IS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?
Setting the record straight
Barking Window
DHS: GUN OWNERS ARE TERRORISTS
Following Obama’s choreographed attack on the Second
Amendment earlier this week, the Department of Homeland
Security announced it will join the administration, the Justice
Department and the FBI in a renewed attack on firearms.
Kurt Nimmo
GUN CONFISCATION BILL INTRODUCED
IN CONGRESS
IRS credit to citizens who allow government
to confiscate their firearms
Kurt Nimmo
OBAMA SIGNS BILL GIVING HIM
ARMED PROTECTION FOR LIFE
Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to
disarm the American people
Paul Joseph Watson
STATS PROVE: MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME
Paul Joseph Watson
The 1%Mass killings account for less than 1 percent of homicides, many do not
involve guns.
Steve Watson
ALEX JONES VS PIERS MORGANAlex Jones upsets the media’s trance over America about guns
Aaron Dykes
10
11
21
22
12
19
14
26
20
KING OBAMA’S 23 EXECUTIVE ORDERS
By issuing 23 executive orders to restrict firearms ownership,
Obama has made his contempt for the people, the Congress and
the Bill of Rights & Constitution blatantly obvious.
Aaron Dykes

DEMOCIDE
How many people will
government kill this year?
Melissa Melton
2nd
AMENDMENT
POSTER
CROSSWORD
PUZZLE
Dave Mivshek
POLICe STATE
Tasers for Torture; 2 Girls, 1 Glove;
TSA Discrimination
Steve Watson; Adan Salazar;
Paul Joseph Watson
ARTIST PROFILEMike Adams’ Counter Think featuring Dan Berger
MASS MURDER PILLS
Americans consume more psychotropic drugs
than any other country in the world
Melissa Melton
DIAGNOSIS: GUN CONTROL
Disarmament plan: first label everyone with a mental
disorder; then use that to take their guns
Jon Rappoport
IT’S ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY
NOT CONTROL
As the debate over stricter gun control laws escalates,
we seem to be focusing too intently on the word “gun.”
The word we really need to zero in on is “control.”
Donna Anderson54
30 58
40
35
45
52
49
On the cover of the sixth installment of Infowars Magazine, we reiterate the warning we gave December 2012, when we said “this man
wants your guns.” Only two months later, we find ourselves in the midst of a full-out attack on our Second Amendment rights, the final
frontier between freedom and enslavement. The future of the Second Amendment will greatly determine the future of America as a repub-
lic of sovereign individuals. We must fight for this right, just as our American forefathers did in 1775! Paul Revere alerted the patriots
that the British were coming to take their guns. Spread the warning, stand up against tyranny: They’re coming for your guns!

DHS: guN owners
are terroristsFollowingObama’schoreographedattackontheSecondAmend-
ment earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security
announced it will join the administration, the Justice Depart-
ment and the FBI in a renewed attack on firearms
10 www.infowars.com
U
nder the guise of preventing
what is largely unpreventable
short of disarming the entire
country – eliminating “active
shooter” situations – DHS boss
Janet Napolitano announced
on Wednesday she will work to
“identify measures that could
be taken to reduce the risk of
mass casualty shootings,” in
other words, disarming law-abiding gun owners.
The Department of Homeland Security is basically
an interior ministry ostensibly created in response to
the attacks of September 11, 2001. Although its stated
goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic
emergencies, particularly terrorism, it has, since its cre-
ation in October of 2001, pursued its real and unstated
objective – acting as an internal political police force
tasked with undermining and attacking enemies of the
ruling elite.
DHS: Global Elite’s Secret Political Police
The DHS is not dedicated to preventing “future mass
casualty shootings,” as Napolitano recently stated, but is
assigned the critical task of attacking political enemies
considered a threat to the globalist status quo. From
lurid fictional claims about “rightwing extremists” to
shepherding a national effort to undermine and destroy
an idealistic Occupy movement, the DHS has repeated-
ly demonstrated that it is a political secret police.
The “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and
Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization
and Recruitment” document leaked to the alternative
media in 2009 set the stage for demonizing gun own-
ers and Second Amendment advocates in addition to a
panoply of other political groups derisively tagged as
“rightwing extremist” by the government.
The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC)
also produced a document in 2009 warning about the
danger of a purported “Modern Militia Movement,”
including the likes of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck
Baldwin. MIAC and fusion centers around the country
coordinated with the DHS to “collect, evaluate, ana-
lyze, and disseminate information and intelligence” on
the supposed threat of libertarians and constitutional-
ists, including Second Amendment advocates. Between
2004 and 2007, the DHS provided $254 million to fu-
sion centers engaged in surveilling Americans consid-
ered a terrorist threat by the government.
Earlier this year, the DHS released a report, “Hot
Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United
States, 1970 to 2008,” that employed the phrase “ex-
treme right-wing, ethno-nationalist/separatist” to de-
scribe individuals and groups it claims pose a domestic
terrorist threat.
Conflating liberty issues with racism is a deliberate
attempt to further demonize Americans opposed to the
policies of the federal government. Designating opposi-
tion as racist is a well-tread path taken by the corporate
media and Democrats, particularly since the election
of Obama.
According to the latest DHS report, “the new ‘terror-
ists’ in this country are the Americans who love lib-
erty, hate unconstitutional government edicts and fear
the bureaucrats running Washington, D.C.,” writes Pat
Shannan. “Second Amendment advocates are at the top
of this ‘terrorist’ list, but a mere ‘pro-life’ bumper stick-
er might be enough to make one suspect in the eyes of
a dumbed-down cop who forgot his oath.”
Pentagon Joins Effort to Target Pro-
Second Amendment Movement
More recently, the government enlisted a West Point
think tank to produce propaganda detailing the so-
called “far right” and warn about white supremacists
teaming up with the “anti-federalist movement” to at-
tack political enemies, the government and most nota-
bly the police.
The West Point report specifically targets the patriot
movement and constitutionalists opposed to a federal
government controlled by an international financial
oligarchy. These violence-prone terrorists, the report
states,
espouse strong convictions regarding the fed-
eral government, believing it to be corrupt and
tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on
individuals’ civil and
constitutional rights.
Finally, they support
civil activism, individ-
ual freedoms, and self
government. Extrem-
ists in the anti-fed-
eralist movement
direct most their vio-
lence against the fed-
eral government and
its proxies in law en-
forcement. (Emphasis
added.)
The last sentence in
the above underscores
the purpose of the report
generated by the United
writtenby kurtnimmo
States Military academy – demonizing libertarians,
constitutionalists, and specifically advocates of the
Second Amendment as violent terrorists who pose a di-
rect threat to law enforcement. The effort is designed
to radicalize the elite’s front line – police and first re-
sponders – and set them against the “far right.”
Establishment Media’s Orchestrated
Propaganda Campaign
The establishment media’s concerted campaign
against the Second Amendment has delivered a relent-
less barrage of polarizing and divisive propaganda in
the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre in December.
CBS Chief Washington Correspondent and anchor
of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer, demonstrated the
absurd lengths the establishment will go to trash the
Constitution and sow fear and dissension of firearm
ownership.
Following Obama’s speech earlier this week, Schief-
fer said dismantling the Second Amendment may pres-
ent a formidable task, but one less daunting than pass-
ing civil rights legislation or defeating Nazi Germany
in World War II.
Producing a relentless wave of skewed surveys and
op-eds in favor of “gun control” and “gun safety” (the
latest misleading euphemism) reveals the urgency of
the effort to disarm America and render it helpless.
Conclusion: Law-abiding Gun Owners
Are the Target, Not Al-Qaeda Terrorists
It is now obvious what is going on in the wake of
Sandy Hook – the establishment is finally pulling out
the last remaining stops in its long envisioned disarma-
ment of the American people in accord with its ultimate
plan to usher in a one-world government and financial
system. A well-armed and educated populace prevents
the global elite from realizing this objective.
In order to realize this required disarmament, sup-
porters and defenders of not only the Second Amend-
ment but the Constitution at large must be branded as
renegade terrorists who threaten police. The cynical
propaganda effort to pose law enforcement against a
growing liberty movement is key to the elite’s effort
to impose an authoritarian police state on America, a
plan that will not be successful if the American people
are allowed to possess firearms more potent than 22
caliber bolt-action rifles.

www.prisonplanet.com 11
O
n Jan. 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was in-
troduced in the House of Repre-
sentatives by Connecticut Dem-
ocrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The
bill will amend the 1986 IRS
code and allow a credit if tax-
payers “surrender” their guns to
the government.
Cited as the “Support Assault
Firearms Elimination and Re-
duction for our Streets Act,” the proposed legislation
represents another effort to convince citizens that
they must voluntarily turn in their guns as a civic
duty and to do their part to reduce “gun violence”
and protect children, as Obama said yesterday.
The bill is yet more evidence that federal and state gov-
ernments are now pulling out all stops short of door-to-
door confiscation in their coordinated effort to disarm
the American people.
Strikingly honest language included in the legisla-
tion specifies that the bill is part of the government’s
“program to reduce the number of privately owned
weapons,” in short, a program to disarm the Ameri-
can people.
The bill contains an exhaustive list of so-called “as-
sault weapons” that will garner a $2,000 tax credit,
including the much demonized Bushmaster AR-15 al-
legedly used in the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and
Means on January 14, 2013.
The inclusion of the IRS in the government’s attempt
to grab guns is especially foreboding considering its ef-
fort to act as a Obamacare compliance enforcer. In July,
we reported on a revelation made by Texas Republican
Rep. Kevin Brady that the tax agency planned to hire
up to 16,500 new agents.
American taxpayers must reject such cynical en-
ticements and stand together and support the Second
Amendment against all attacks by Obama and Congress.
The latest foray against the Second Amendment and
the founding principles of the republic commenced
soon after the Sandy Hook incident on December 15
when California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein
exploited the tragedy to call for an attack on America’s
“gun culture.”
“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress
there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about
America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent
more loss of life,” Feinstein said. “I will do another as-
sault weapons ban.”
New York governor Andrew Cuomo jumped on the
anti-Second Amendment bandwagon a few days lat-
er, on December 21, and proposed gun confiscation in
the state. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandato-
ry sale to the state could be an option,” Cuomo said.
He was egged on by notorious gun-grabber advocate
and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg who
also demanded Obama use unconstitutional executive
actions against the Second Amendment.
On December 30, Feinstein said America needs to
“bite the bullet” and restrict the gun rights of Ameri-
cans following comments by president Obama that he
would support draconian legislation aimed at the Sec-
ond Amendment.
Over the next two weeks, the establishment media
launched an intense anti-Second Amendment cam-
paign and produced corporate polls in favor of “com-
mon sense” gun bans. Alex Jones appeared on the Piers
Morgan Show and a flurry of pro and con pundits and
Gun confiscation
bill introduced in
congressIRS credit to citizens who allow government to confiscate
their firearms
writtenby kurtnimmo
commentators debated the finer points of stripping
Americans of their right to own firearms.
On December 16, Obama and Joe Biden went on na-
tional television accompanied by a gaggle of children
and pushed the federal government’s anti-Second
Amendment agenda. Obama brazenly signed a num-
ber of unconstitutional executive actions during the
performance instructing the government to roll back
the Second Amendment.
Kurt Nimmo is the editor at Infowars.com and the au-
thor of “Another Day in the Empire: Life in Neoconser-
vative America.”
JOIN US IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST TYRANNY & HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH
ADVERTISING SPACE IS LIMITED SECURE YOUR SPOT NOW
CONTACT INFOADS@INFOWARS.COM FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEPT oct nov DEC jan FEB
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
100K PRINT & DIRECT MAIL - 1500 AUSTIN LOCATIONS - 164K EMAIL LIST - LOCAL & NATIONAL AUDIENCE
COMPLIMENTARY DESIGN SERVICES AVAILABLE ADVERTISING SPOTS TO ACCOMMODATE ANY BUDGET
FRANCHISING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE SOON

12 www.infowars.com
I
n the weeks since the Sandy Hook school
shooting, Americans have been brow-
beaten by a plethora of foreigners in the
media keen to lecture them on how their
constitutional right to keep and bear arms
should be eviscerated.
It started with British CNN host Piers
Morgan, who seized upon the tragedy with-
in hours to push his fanatical anti-Second
Amendment agenda, calling for a Brit-
ish-style total gun ban. This eventually led to a White
House petition calling for Morgan to be deported which
went viral and attracted over 100,000 signatures.
As USA Today highlights, the Morgan controver-
sy served to enflame a global gun control debate with
foreign media personalities around the world lecturing
Americans on what rights they should be able to exercise.
“In news outlets around the world, editorials, news
stories and columns demand American gun control.
Our political debates have gone global and American
conservatives are outnumbered in a way few even re-
alize. Factor in the impact of worldwide social media
and the Internet has given our home-grown liberals an
incredible advantage and distorted what should be a
uniquely American debate,” wrote Dan Gainor, noting
that quasi-state owned media outlets like the BBC and
Qatar’s Al-Jazeera were also demanding Americans be
stripped of their inherent Second Amendment rights.
It was then the turn of the Communist Chinese gov-
ernment to jump on board the anti-gun bandwagon.
An editorial in the official state-run media front, Xin-
hua, called on Barack Obama to declare “war” on the
Second Amendment and disarm U.S. citizens as soon
as possible.
Mao’s policies were responsible for the deaths of 40-
70 million people; the vast majority of whom had no
means of defending themselves against the genocide
overseen by Mao and his henchmen during the Cul-
tural Revolution.
Not to be outdone, the Kremlin-funded Russia Today
television network also lined up to attack gun rights.
During an interview with former Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, an RT anchor repeat-
edly interrupted Roberts when he refused to agree that
the Sandy Hook massacre should lead to draconian gun
control laws in America.
“I was surprised to see that RT Moscow’s interest was
to spread the official U.S. story of the shootings and to
ask me if I thought ‘assault weapons’ would be banned
as a consequence,” said Roberts, noting that RT refused
to acknowledge Roberts’ attempt to cite media reports
that confirmed Adam Lanza’s assault rifle was left in
his car and was not even used during the massacre.
In a separate discussion about the aftermath of the
Sandy Hook massacre, a Russia Today host and an RT
editor tried to savage Alex Jones’ impartiality by accus-
ing Infowars of being money driven.
Russia Today accusing another media organization
of allowing their accuracy and bias to be dictated by
finance is somewhat rich given that RT is funded to the
tune of billions of dollars by three term dictator Vlad-
imir Putin’s government and was conceived by Putin’s
press spokesperson Aleksei Gromo.
Dan Gainor notes that RT is “the voice for the Putin
regime,” and that it seized upon the Sandy Hook shoot-
ing to launch an exercise in “America-bashing” which
portrayed the United States as being “filled with meth
labs, murders and anti-government opponents.”
Federally-funded NPR also showcased how Austra-
lians were calling on Americans to be disarmed, despite
the fact that as the Wall Street Journal documented,
“Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t
made their people noticeably safer, nor have they pre-
vented massacres.”
It makes a serious statement when virtually every
major global media outfit in the world is on board
with the Obama administration’s aggressive campaign
to eviscerate the Second Amendment, and serves as a
reminder that Americans are under ideological assault
from political enemies both foreign and domestic.
Obama Teams Up
With Foreign
Media and
Governments to
Destroy Second
AmendmentRussian, Chinese, British, Australian talking heads attack
Second Amendment
writtenby PaulJosephWatson

14 www.infowars.com
BY ISSUING 23 EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO RESTRICT
FIREARMS OWNERSHIP, OBAMA HAS MADE HIS
CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE, THE CONGRESS AND THE
BILL OF RIGHTS & CONSTITUTION BLATANTLY OBVIOUS
written by Aaron Dykes

arack Obama’s bold
use of executive or-
ders to ‘take action
without Congress’
amounts to an out-
rageous unconstitu-
tional overreach of
powers, and is im-
peachable action on
its face. And Obama
isn’t even done; he
has vowed to push Congress on a new assault weap-
ons ban along with other legislative restrictions on
the guaranteed Second Amendment, which “shall not
be infringed.”
But worse, the 23 executive orders issued by Obama
make clear that the vast medical bureaucracy central-
ized under ObamaCare will be used to profile and ha-
rass Americans in order to disqualify them for gun own-
ership based on “mental health” history.
At least seven of the 23 executive orders relate
to mental health reporting that includes “clarify-
ing” the role of doctors and health care providers
in “asking their patients about guns in the home,”
reporting “threats of violence” to authorities, and
screening for “mental health” will create the back-
bone for a “no buy” list that disbars Constitutional
rights from flagged individuals without due pro-
cess. At least 8 executive orders relate to new rules
on background checks and weapons sales & owner-
ship restrictions.
The numbers on the list relate to the summaries of
the executive orders reported by the Washington Times.
The titles used are shorthand language by this author.
MENTAL HEALTH/
MEDICAL SPIESThese executive orders effectively “deputize doc-
tors” to spy on patients, while priming and populating
a database to take firearms rights under the pretense
of “mental health” issues. This type of legislation has
already been pursued by the likes of Senaotr Chuck
Schumer and others.
Address legal restrictions related to states sharing
data under Health Insurance Portability Act Contrib-
utes towards centralized health care database that will
be used to authorize gun purchases.
Directs the Center for Disease Control and Preven-
tion (CDC) to “research causes and prevention of
gun violence.” Undoubtedly, the report will flag
PTSD and other related “mental health” symp-
toms that will negate gun ownership. Undoubt-
edly, it will not properly address the role of SSRI
and other psychotropic prescription medications
that an overwhelming number of mass shooters
have reportedly been on.
Under Obamacare, doctors can ask patients about
“guns in their homes,” and are clearly encouraged
to flag gun owners that may show so-called signs
of “mental illness.” Under the newly revised DSM-
5 manual that psychiatrists use for diagnosis, a
wide-array of behavior is categorized as mental ill-
ness. While it may be desirable that unhealthy peo-
ple find treatment, it is clear that such sweeping
labels will serve to prevent otherwise law-abiding
citizens from purchasing guns.
Orders a letter to health care providers reminding
them to “report threats of violence” to law enforce-
ment. Clearly, this would also be a database flag used
to disqualify potential buyers. The order leaves room
for this policy to be abused.
Clarify mental health coverage under Medicaid Empha-
sizes mental health as an issue of focus.
Clarify “health benefits and parity requirements” un-
der Obamacare Once again, ObamaCare is tied to a col-
lectivist society and to an effort to control guns.
“Mental-health parity regulations” Mental health
is clearly emerging as a watch word for reigning in
firearms ownership rights. While truly unstable indi-
viduals should be helped, the opportunity for abuse is
clearly widespread and troublesome. A nation of sheep
have been encouraged to ask their doctors for pills if
they feel unhappy or depressed. Will a history of SSRI
medication be used to take away an individuals right
to bear arms, for instance?
Gun Owners of America sounded the alarm back
in June 2012 that ObamaCare would be used to flag
would-be buyers and disqualify individuals from pur-
chasing weapons:
“Centralizing these medical records will allow the
FBI to troll a list of Americans for ailments such
as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to deny
them their gun rights, in the same way that the
Veterans Administration has already denied more
than 150,000 veterans their right to bear arms.”
A summary review of these executive orders makes
clear that this kind of profiling and issuing of “no buy”
lists is indeed a major concern that undermines Sec-
ond Amendment rights. Good intentions to promote
“mental health” are distorted and used to “out” sup-
posedly unqualified individuals who will have no due
process, no trial and no chance to even make a case
concerning their rights.
While ObamaCare and other health care practices
will increasingly flag patients and enter them into a
database, the Obama cabinet will be engaged in sell-
ing the American public, taking away the rights of in-
dividuals on the basis of “mental health.”
BRAINWASHING
AMERICANS ON
MENTAL HEALTH &
GUN OWNERSHIP
Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership
campaign During the Clinton Administration, Attor-
ney General Eric Holder vowed to “brainwash” people
on guns, attempting to change the perception of gun
ownership the way that attitudes towards cigarette
smoking was changed. Clearly, the president’s new
campaign would continue this effort, demonizing and
undermining the clear constitutional and self-defense
rationale for bearing arms.
‘National dialogue’ on “mental health” w/ Health & human
services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Sec-
retary Arne Duncan Meanwhile, the heads of two of the
most dangerous and distorted agencies will tour the
nation to lecture on reforming the nations’ “mental
health” practices. Again, this has all been issued in
the context of gun control. The Obama Administra-
tion is wantonly infringing upon the Second Amend-
ment again by trying to distort the lines of jurisdiction
“I’m against having a king,
I think having a monarch
is what we fought the
American Revolution over
and someone who wants
to bypass the Constitution,
bypass Congress — that’s
someone who wants to act
like a king or a monarch.”
-RAND PAUL

16 www.infowars.com
and give the Dept. of Health and Human Services (ad-
ministering ObamaCare) and the Dept. of Education
authority on labeling or dealing with people deemed
unfit for ownership
“NO BUY” LIST
SEIZED GUNS/
PRIVATE SALES:
ATF, FBI, LAW
ENFORCEMENT
The data amassed through the health care system will
be matched with the criminal background checks that
are already in place. Felons are already barred from
purchasing firearms. Now, law enforcement is instructed
to run additional background checks before “returning
seized guns” while federally licensed firearms dealers
are saddled with additional ATF regulations, and will,
apparently be facilitating background checks for “private
sales,” which are targeted for further restrictions under
this initial executive action.
Again, the stage is clearly set for background check au-
thorization denial on the basis of “mental health” flags,
on top of already instituted criminal history flags.
Strengthens data sharing under federal background
check system Further centralized integration of data.
Provides incentives for states to provide background
check In addition to infringement on the Second
Amendment, much of this executive action furthers
the trend of federal overreach, guarded in theory by
the Tenth Amendment. This order calls for “incen-
tives” (i.e. federal dollars) for cooperation by states
which have a constitutional right to non-compliance
with federal policies.
Attorney General to “review categories of individuals
prohibited from having a gun” Again, we see the forma-
tion of a “no buy” list similar to terrorism watch lists
and “no fly” lists maintained by Homeland Security
where due process is non-existent and individuals are
flagged and disbarred based on suspicion or ‘signs’ of
mental illness or related behavior. The potential for
abuse and lack of legal recourse is clear.
Law enforcement shall “run full background check”
before “returning seized guns” The question here
is what is a “seized gun” and under what circum-
stances is it seized? Will unregistered firearms, oth-
erwise legally owned by a law abiding individual,
be seized? This policy potentially violates legal gun
owners stopped in traffic, at checkpoints, at registra-
tion (as proposed under Feinstein’s bill) or even at
home visits. While background checks can be done
almost instantaneously, a “full” background check
could disarm legal owners for days or weeks until
individuals are cleared and, essentially permitted, to
resume ownership.
ATF to send letter to gun dealers on “how to run back-
ground checks for private sales” This is a big area. We
have already witnessed the ATF attempting to halt
legal private gun sales in the state of Texas. Now, as
a half-measure to banning private sales outright, pro-
spective buyers will be forced to go register and pass
background checks at dealer locations, effectively out-
lawing purely private sales. Meanwhile, licensed fire-
arms dealers, already burdened with paperwork and
red tape, will apparently be forced to facilitate private
sale transactions, after receiving ATF policy mandates
on ‘how to run background checks.’
Require federal law enforcement “to trace guns recovered
in criminal investigations” This executive order reeks of
the hypocrisy exercised by the Obama Administration
during Operation Fast & Furious, which has now thor-
oughly unfolded into a scandal that has found Attorney
General Eric Holder in contempt for lying about what
he knew and when, while casting doubt on the honest
intentions of the ATF and Department of Justice. The
Obama Administration admittedly “walked” thousands
of semi-automatic weapons (now conveniently targeted
by gun banners) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels
so that they could subsequently be “traced” and blamed
for crimes.
Dept. of Justice to analyze “lost and stolen guns” data,
make available Further centralizing data to trace guns,
this order has the potential for abuse by criminalizing
otherwise law-abiding owners who’ve not cooperated
in registration efforts and may possess “lost or stolen
guns” through legal means.
New BATFE director appointed This relates to a purg-
ing of officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives who were either indicated
in the Fast and Furious scandal, or who may hold
further information on other officials involved, par-
ticularly those higher up in the chain. Whistleblow-
ers at the ATF helped uncover some of the details
about Fast and Furious that were ultimately linked
to Obama cabinet officials.
SAFETY DRILLS
TO PUSH CRISIS-
CULTURE, PARANOIA
TRAINING AND
FEDERAL MONEY/
JURISDICTION
Finally, in fitting with the federalization of back-
ground checks, data sharing, and a mandate over
gun safety and “mental health”, the executive branch
is sticking its hands into safety protocol at schools,
churches, public centers and more.
It further hypes of the paranoia of terrorism and
lone wolf domestic extremists identified by Homeland
Security and other departments to institute manda-
tory training drills, crisis scenarios and the like that
have the potential for abuse by wasting tax payer dol-
lars on statistically unlikely scenarios while federaliz-
ing the chain of command and jurisdiction for police
and other first responders.
Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes.
First responders, schools active shooter training
Homeland Security and FEMA have already been con-
ducting training and drills based on mall shooters,
returning veterans gone wild, homeland terrorist and
other related scenarios. The Infowars crew covered
one such drill that took place in Denver, not far from
the Aurora Batman massacre, that was dubbed “Oper-
ation Mountain Guardian” and run by a federal chain
of command headed by Homeland Security. Now, or-
ganizations like CrisisActors.org are institutionalizing
this training by hiring FEMA-certified actors who play
various roles in these terror and shooter scenarios.
Obama’s executive order expands and further man-
dates this practice for incidents which are statistically
very rare, but widely hyped in the media as imminent.
While certain aspects of this kind of training may be
prudent, in many respects it conditions the public and
first responder force to accept greater government
control as an automatic response to any mass casualty
incident, when the jurisdiction would normally fall on
local or state authorities.
Efforts to “prevent gun violence and prosecute gun
crime” Obama voted for laws to ‘throw the book’ at
illegal gun owners who defended their homes from
invaders in the state of Illinois, the home of the mur-
der capital of the world, Chicago. Private gun sales

and unregistered firearms will clearly be prosecuted,
while Castle laws and ‘Stand Your Ground’ legislation
will be undermined or challenged (recall the Trayvon
Martin case).
Attorney General report on “gun-safety technologies”
Again, the same Attorney General who wanted to
brainwash Americans on guns and who was complicit
in the Fast & Furious scandal wants to implement new
technologies and promote gun safety. Where is Hold-
er’s credibility to do so?
Incentives to schools to “hire school-resource officers”
Federalized money will be thrown around for politi-
cally-correct “school-resource officers” who will likely
provide counseling and monitor student behavior.
Model emergency response plans for schools / worship
/ college campuses The Sikh temple shooting, the San-
dy Hook elementary school massacre and the Batman
movie premiere massacre have all brought the fear of
violence to our private lives, and invited in the federal
government to mediate those spheres.
Once again, it is generally abusive for a president
to rule by executive fiat, and the authority to do so
demands questions. It is all the more unconstitutional
for a president to take on a constitutionally-guaran-
teed right and attempt to reign it in through countless
regulations, all without formally consulting Congress.
While further gun control legislation has been rec-
ommended by the Obama Administration, and will
be pushed via the kind of bills being introduced by
Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Schumer, the people should
demand that the overreach of executive power be
checked by calls for impeachment, as Infowars.com
and others have recommended.
Aaron Dykes is a researcher, reporter, producer and
writer for the Infowars Nightly News and Infowars.com.
He attended the University of Texas and has worked
with Alex Jones since 2006.

20 www.infowars.com
MASS KILLINGS ACCOUNT FOR LESS THAN 1%
OF HOMICIDES, MANY DO NOT INVOLVE GUNS
W
hile the mainstream me-
dia obsesses over the
possibility of gun con-
trol in the wake of the
Sandy Hook tragedy, a
new study puts such
incidents, and the idea
of anti-Second Amend-
ment legislation, into stark context.
Research published in USA Today, stemming
from FBI data, reveals that over a five year pe-
riod ranging from 2006 to 2010, mass killings
accounted for only a tiny fraction of homicides,
less than 1 percent to be precise.
The research found that during that time, there
were 156 incidents in which four or more people
were killed – the classification of a mass killing.
The Numbers Don’t Lie.
The study notes that guns were not even in-
volved in a third of those incidents, and that lone
gunmen were to blame less than half of the time.
The data also reveals that where guns were in-
volved in mass killings, handguns were the far
more likely weapon of choice.
Means of death in many of the incidents ranged
from fire, to knives or blunt objects. In many in-
cidents, the victims were known to the killers
and were targeted, rather than being strangers
in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In total, the attacks killed 774 people, including
at least 161 young children. These numbers are
still tragic, and while any deaths, particularly
homicides, and particularly mass homicides, are
abhorrent – the figures clearly do not represent
an epidemic of violent killing using firearms.
To put the figures into context, U.S. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention records show
that more people died from migraines, falling
out of chairs and sunstroke than were murdered
by mass killers during this time.
Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minne-
sota Department of Corrections, and an expert
in mass murders told USA Today that such inci-
dents have also become less common since the
mid-1990s.
Clearly, such simple and cursory research pro-
vides a reminder in the face of media promulgated
panic, that the majority of the time, America is a
perfectly safe country to live in. Factor in the no-
tion that of the mass shootings that do take place,
many lives may have been spared had the shooter
encountered responsible armed Americans.
When it comes to schools, there are hundreds
across the country that have taken measures to
responsibly endure the safety of children by ex-
tensively training teachers to carry concealed
weapons and react to crisis situations. Such
programs are subject to strict oversight, and
the individuals authorized to carry firearms are
subject to thorough and rigorous background
checks.
While Barak Obama is set to address gun con-
trol measures, that will affect EVERY American
citizen, for the first time in a decade at The State
Of The Union address next month, consider the
fact that virtually every mass shooter in recent
history has been on some form of SSRI drug. The
link simply cannot be denied, and it is clear that
there is a much simpler way of going about pre-
venting such incidents.
Those who refuse to acknowledge these facts
and continue to blindly push for stripping away
at the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution are either woefully myopic or com-
pletely politically driven individuals pursuing a
very specific Anti-Second Amendment agenda.
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor
for Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. He has a Mas-
ters Degree in international relations from the School
of Politics at the University of Nottingham in England.
The hypocrisy
of gun
control
advocates who
feverishly
work to
create victim
disarmament
yet surround
themselves
with armed
men is rampant
amongst the
political
class.
writtenbySteveWatson

T
he legislation, crafted by Republican
Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls
back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-
year limit on Secret Service protection
for former presidents. Bush would have
been the first former commander in chief
affected,” reports Yahoo News.
The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers
millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law
which will see presidents protected for life as well as
their children up to age 16.
The irony of Obama seveking to surround himself
with armed men for the rest of his life, while
simultaneously working to disarm the American people
via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via
executive decree, represents the height of hypocrisy.
But it’s not the first time that Obama has lauded the
notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect
himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating
that very same right for the American people.
During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast
on December 26, recorded before the Sandy Hook
shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-
election was the ability “to have men with guns around
at all times,” in order to protect his daughters.
In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters
in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security
guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming
teachers and school officials to prevent school massacres
has been dismissed by gun control advocates who want
school campuses to remain “gun free zones” where
victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out
their rampage unimpeded.
The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly
work to create victim disarmament yet surround
themselves with armed men is rampant amongst the
political class.
Despite in the same year calling for “Mr. and Mrs.
America” to “turn in” their guns, California Senator
Dianne Feinstein, who also authored a draconian bill
that treats gun owners like sex offenders, admitted to
carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection
after she was threatened by a terrorist group.
Other prominent gun control advocates, such as
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have also
aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while
themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times.
Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun
control, also has armed bodyguards, one of whom was
arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at New
York’s JFK airport back in 2005.
A White House petition created at the end of 2012
called for making the White House and all federal
buildings gun free zones. “If the government believes
gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same
standard should apply to government servants and
employees,” states the petition, which in mid-January
reached the 25,000 signature threshold necessary for
an official White House response.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer
for Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. He is the
author of “Order Out Of Chaos.” Watson is also a host
for Infowars Nightly News.
OBAMA SIGNS
BILL GIVING
HIM ARMED
PROTECTION
FOR LIFE
writtenbyPaulJosephWatson
Despite launching a
gun control agenda
that threatens to disarm
the American people,
President Obama has
signed a bill that would
afford him armed Secret
Service protection for life.

22 www.infowars.com
espite the onslaught of media propaganda
in support of the Obama administration’s
anti-second amendment agenda in the after-
math of the Sandy Hook school shooting, the
statistics clearly illustrate that gun control
does not reduce violent crime and in fact has
the opposite effect.
As graph A (below) highlights, according
to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, vio-
lent crime offenses in the United States have
been falling since 2007. The five year trend
clearly shows that, despite there being an on-
going national debate about gun violence in America, vi-
olent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.
The graph Crime vs. Guns (B) from the Department of
Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years,
the amount of guns in America per 1000 people has in-
creased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.
In addition, despite the media drumbeat that murders
involving guns represent the number one safety threat to
American citizens, the reality is completely the opposite.
Amongst the “top ten killers” in the United States (see
graph C), homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the
list, according to figures from the CDC and the FBI. Al-
most 20 times more people die in the United States from
medical errors than they do from firearm homicides, but
there is no outcry to slap draconian regulations on the
medical industry.
In addition, the number of murders committed with
hammers and clubs in the United States routinely
outpaces the number of homicides committed using a
rifle. Should U.S. lawmakers introduce urgent legisla-
tion to outlaw hammers and baseball bats?
The figures clearly illustrate that rising gun ownership
does not cause a rise in vio-
lent crime.
Look at Chicago (see
graph D), which in 1982
passed a ban on all hand-
guns except for those reg-
istered with the city before
the ban was enacted.
Since the handgun ban
took effect, the number of
murders in Chicago com-
mitted using handguns has
been 40 percent higher than
before the ban, and has
spiked even higher in recent
years, proving that the gun
ban actually served to cause
an increase in violent crime.
In comparison, let’s take
a look at Britain, which has
some of the strictest gun
control laws in the devel-
oped world. Given that one
of the most vocal advocates
for gun control in the after-
math of Sandy Hook has
been a British citizen – Piers Morgan – who has used his
platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the
contrast is illuminating.
Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an
average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels
in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the U.K. is higher
per capita than the U.S. and the highest in the world
amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which
also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990s.
Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns
clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything
causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims
will not be able to defend themselves.
In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a
victim of knife crime in the U.K. than you are a victim
of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media
debate about banning kitchen knives.
Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996
following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland,
with law-abiding people rushing to turn in their fire-
arms, over the next decade gun crime in the U.K. more
than doubled. This proves that while law-abiding citi-
zens willingly disarmed themselves, criminals were un-
fazed by the new laws and continued to use guns illegal-
ly. Therefore gun control only disarms innocent people
since criminals do not follow the law.
As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Strict gun
laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their peo-
ple noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”
In summary, despite a widespread ban on gun ownership
in the United Kingdom, it is the most dangerous place to
live in terms of violent crime in the entire western world.

Another country where violent
crime and rapes are soaring is In-
dia, recently in the news because
of the tragic death of a woman who
was gang raped and savagely beat-
en in New Delhi.
India has a gun control policy just
as draconian as the United King-
dom, and despite Indian women
begging the police to allow them
to own firearms for personal pro-
tection, the vast majority of license
applications have been rejected,
leaving women defenseless against
rapists and murderers.
Now let’s take a look at a country
which is geographically-speaking a
stone’s throw away from the United
Kingdom – Switzerland.
With a population of just six mil-
lion, Switzerland has 2 million pub-
licly-owned firearms. Despite the fact
that guns are everywhere in Switzer-
land and are a deeply-ingrained part
of Swiss culture, the gun crime rate
“is so low that statistics are not even
kept,” reports the BBC.
Indeed, with its population of
law-abiding armed citizens, Switzer-
land is one of the safest countries to
live in the entire world, with homicide
rates at just 2.2 people per 100,000.
So the U.K. is one of the most dan-
gerous places to live in the developed
world, while Switzerland is one of
the safest, and yet Switzerland is a
nation of gun owners. How then can
we possibly conclude that gun con-
trol reduces violent crime when in
virtually every instance it has prov-
en to have the opposite effect?
The figures clearly show that gun
control does not reduce violent
crime, and in fact only emboldens
criminals to use guns illegally – safe
in the knowledge that their victims
have been disarmed courtesy of gov-
ernment legislation.
Recent cases involving law abiding
citizens in America, largely ignored
by the mass media, who have exer-
cised their second amendment right
to prevent a crime and save lives,
emphasize this reality, including
an incident just two days after the
Connecticut massacre during which
a gunman entered a theater in San
Antonio after killing his ex-girl-
friend but was shot dead by an off
duty policewoman.
In addition, last month’s mall
shooting in Oregon was brought to
an end when 22-year-old Nick Meli,
who has a concealed carry permit,
pulled a gun on the killer, prompting
masked shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts
to use his final bullet on himself.
In both cases, the media virtually
ignored the fact that potential mas-
sacres were stopped by responsible
Americans using firearms. Similar
cases emerge on a weekly basis, in-
cluding another incident on Friday
where a woman in Atlanta defend-
ed herself and her young children
against an intruder by using a legal-
ly owned firearm.
The National Safety Council notes
that guns are used some 2.5 million
times a year in self defense against
criminals, meaning that firearms
are utilized to protect innocent lives
in 80 times more cases than they are
used to end lives.
These figures, not just from Amer-
ica but from other countries around
the world, send a clear and consis-
tent message - gun control actually
increases violent crime, more guns
in the hands of law-abiding citizens
equals less crime, and only by allow-
ing responsible, law-abiding people
to be armed and not by disarming
the victims can we hope to prevent
or lessen the scale of future trage-
dies like the Sandy Hook massacre.

26 www.infowars.com
“F
antastic appearance tonight. Thought
you did exactly what you were there to
do. Masterful and hypnosis breaking.”
The text message came the day after
Alex Jones appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight
program from a friend well established in the media
world, not just to be encouraging, but to acknowledge a
defining moment that had happened on live television.
It was Hypnosis breaking. It had upset the balance
of steady meme emitting from over the television. The
moment disruptive to the whole tone of broadcast, stir-
ring as if from a sleep.
Here’s a short excerpt of the interview that spread
virally all across the world’s media sphere:
ALEX JONES: The Second Amendment isn’t there
for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from ty-
rannical government and street thugs. Take the
women in India. Your piece earlier on CNN I was
watching during Anderson Cooper’s show. Didn’t
tell you that the women of India have signed gi-
ant petitions to get firearms because the police
can’t and won’t protect them. The answer is --
(CROSSTALK)
ALEX JONES: Wait a minute. I have FBI crime
statistics that come out a year late, 2011, 20-
plus percent crime drop in the last nine years.
Real violent crime because more guns means
less crime. Britain took the guns 15, 16 years
ago. Tripling of your overall violent crime. True
we have a higher gun violence level, but overall,
muggings, stabbings, deaths, you -- those men
raped that woman in India to death with an iron
rod four feet long.
ALEX JONES: You can’t ban the iron rods. The
guns -- the iron rods, Piers, didn’t do it, the tyrants
did it. Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns,
Mao took the guns. Fidel Castro took the guns.
PIERS MORGAN: OK. How many --
ALEX JONES: Hugo Chavez took the guns, and
I’m here to tell you, 1776 will commence again
if you try to take our firearms. It doesn’t matter
how many lemmings you get out there on the
street begging for them to have their guns taken.
We will not relinquish them. Do you understand?
ALEX JONES: That why you’re going to fail and
the establishment knows no matter how much
propaganda, the republic will rise again when
you attempt to take our guns.
CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight: Jan. 7, 2013
It was a routing. An upset to an entire nest of usurp-
ers who were trying to control the debate over guns.
Alex Jones went into the CNN studios and metaphor-
ically turned over the tables in the temple of American
thought, where counterfeiters were exploiting honest
seekers of news, and injecting instead deceptive lies
that distort the issues.
Alex had completely broken through the trance and
changed the debate that was focused on the trauma of
the horrible deaths of children, and demanding Ameri-
cans give up their birthright, and turn in their arms as a
sacrament as tribute to the 20 slain kids at Sandy Hook.
Afterwards, the entire media cycle on television, on
radio, and in social media, was saturated with reaction
to Alex’s battle with Piers Morgan.
It quickly flashed to the #1 Twitter trend (excluding
UPSETS THE
MEDIA’S TRANCE
OVER AMERICA
ABOUT GUNS
paid promotions), with people everywhere weighing
in on the confrontation. CNN programs played clips of
the heated debate over and again, desperately trying to
spin the incident to demonize gun owners. Radio shock
jock Howard Stern mused over the appearance, with
his co-host Robin Quivers commenting that she was
“with the guy arguing with Piers.”
Even the White House responded, officially denying
a petition to deport Piers Morgan started by Alex Jones
during the CNN broadcast that garnered more than
103,000 signatures.
Peter Grier, for the Christian Science Monitor, wrote
“The wild faceoff between CNN host Piers Morgan and
gun activist Alex Jones has, suddenly, made Jones the
new face of the pro-gun movement, just as the White
House pushes for gun control.”
The establishment clearly resented the firestorm that
resulted from Alex Jones’ defiant declaration in defense
of firearms.
The corporate media would love to keep the debate
focused on the tame talking heads in suits from gun
lobbies like the NRA, or on semi-automatic “assault
weapons,” and on the minutia surrounding arguments
about the number of bullets in a magazine, or on spe-
cific scary looking guns like the AR-15.
ALEX JONES: They know your script. OK? You’re
not going to get our guns. By the way, you guys
always say we just want to take the semiautos.
OK? And all this other stuff. The semiautos aren’t
even -- rifles aren’t even used but in a fraction of
the crimes. You can pull those numbers up, OK?
PIERS MORGAN: You’ve had a lot to say, just an-
swer this question.
ALEX JONES: No, my point is that the Second
Amendment is sacrosanct… And you’re not get-
ting it.
PIERS MORGAN: Do you know which weap-
on was used in the Oregon shopping mall mass
Alex
Jones
writtenby AARONDYKES
“NO MY POINT IS THAT
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
IS SACROSANCT...AND
YOU’RE NOT GETTING IT.”

shooting recently?
ALEX JONES: I understand that people who were
mentally ill on all the … [selective serotonin re-
uptake] inhibiters who play the shoot them up
games … want to go out and do this.
PIERS MORGAN: Alex.
ALEX JONES: Because there’s criminals, I don’t
lose my rights, Piers.
Piers Morgan had been shut down by a fiery de-
fense of an essential right — the kind Benjamin
Franklin warned never to trade for the appear-
ance of safety, because it would destroy both. But
Piers is just a mouthpiece for a coordinated effort
to strip away gun rights, deeply embedded in the
founding of the United States and established as
a right that ‘shall not be infringed.’
PIERS MORGAN: “I’m in favor of a nationwide
ban on military-style semiautomatic assault
weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
A cadre of authoritarians that have constructed a
system of rule, a shadow government, outside of the
system of government prescribed by the Constitution
— and, importantly, restrained by the Bill of Rights.
After launching an empire, infiltrating the sphere of
Washington politics, monopolizing the industries, and
constructing an occupational mechanism in the De-
partment of Homeland Security (and other institution
for “emergency” rule), the autocrats are constraining
the right to bear arms in effort for final control. It’s
ranking members funded and sponsored Obama’s pres-
idential campaigns. They have green lighted an all out
race for gun control legislation.
Alex Jones’ rant on the virtues of firearms owner-
ship was blasted by blogs and television pundits as too
charged, overly excited, crazy, dangerous and more.
JONES: America was born on guns and whiskey.
MORGAN: Right. But --
JONES: It’s true we’re a violent society.
MORGAN: Right. The fact that America has the
most guns --
JONES: But statistically knives kill three times
more.
MORGAN: And the most gun murders.
JONES: Have you seen the FBI numbers? Knives,
bats, rocks.
MORGAN: Let’s talk guns --
JONES: Kill many, many times more.
MORGAN: Let’s talk--Alex, let’s talk about the guns.
JONES: It’s not the -- it’s not the rock, it’s not the
knife... When a mother chops her kids up with a
cleaver --
MORGAN: Alex. Alex. Alex. Tell me why I’m
wrong about the AR-15 --
JONES: Why don’t you want to get rid of drugs?
… Because they’re half your sponsors?
MORGAN: Stick to the topic.
JONES: America’s number one cause of unnatu-
ral deaths now is suicide... Not automobile acci-
dents… Not cancer. Listen.
MORGAN: You accuse me of attacking the Sec-
ond Amendment of the Constitution.
JONES: I want to get people off pills that the in-
sert says will make you commit suicide … and
kill people.
MORGAN: Alex. Alex. Let’s get about the Second
Amendment.
JONES: I want to blame the real culprit… Suicide
pills… Mass murder pills.
Predictably, the most common reaction to Alex Jones’
appearance was to attack the messenger, instead of ad-
dressing the facts.
After the break, the CNN staff scrambled to get Alex
out of the building. They cut the program short, elimi-
nating the third segment they had planned with Jones
debating Alan Dershowitz. Instead, Dershowitz, a legal
expert who has defended torture and war crimes, went
into damage control, declaring Alex Jones to be a dan-
gerous man better left disarmed.
PIERS MORGAN: I want to bring Alan Dershow-
itz who’s agreed to defend me from deportation.
A great guy.
PIERS MORGAN: You defended John Lennon, no
less. You’ve seen the encounter there with Alex
Jones. He’s the guy behind this petition to have
me deported. He’s really one of the reasons why
I’m so concerned about the lack of gun control in
America. He’s a man that owns 50 weapons. He
has sort of a pathological view about it. He seems
unhinged to me.
PIERS MORGAN: And the irony of these gun
rights guys saying to me that I’m rude to them
won’t be lost on my regular viewers, I’m sure. I
try to stay calm, and really there’s no other way
dealing with him because he’s just sort of this
ranting guy who doesn’t want anybody to grab
his guns, but no sense of awareness about the
wider issue of a particular type of weapon being
used to commit these mass outrages.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, we lawyers refer to
people like that not as witnesses but as exhibits.
He was an exhibit, like a piece of evidence. You
just see him speaking and you say to yourself, I
don’t want that man to have a gun. I wouldn’t
feel comfortable having an argument with him in
his home where he had access to his 50 weapons,
and if he got really mad at something I said or if
I disputed his contentions or I told him he was
lying about the FBI statistics, and that he was ly-
ing about the claim more guns equal less crime, I
would be worried he would grab for his semiau-
tomatic to try to resolve it.
PIERS MORGAN: I agree. What really would con-
cern me about somebody like him is the amount
of influence he has, a growing influence, as he
boasted. He’s got millions of people listening to
him. And some of his YouTube rants have got tens
of millions of people watching them.
Piers Morgan and his guests, and his compatriots
in the corporate-owned propaganda-driven media,
continued to assassinate Jones’ character and decry
his burgeoning influence on the public debate.
The following night on Piers Morgan demonstrated the
fervent desire to discredit Alex Jones, while the gun
grabbers discredited themselves by exhibiting their
vicious tendencies and approval of violence to win a
debate.
Shoot the Messenger
Piers Morgan dragged on family members of victim’s
from the Batman movie massacre to counter Alex Jones
loud positioning the night before. Behind the rhetoric,
was an eerie illusion to violence done to Jones’ chil-
dren.
DAVE HOOVER: What I would hope and pray for
this man is that he never gets a phone call from
his loved one at 3:00 in the morning, screaming
that his daughter has been killed in a theater.
I hope and pray, because this man is so far off the
target on this issue, that he would not be able to
deal with that kind of tragedy in his life.
Then later on that January 8 episode, a sports
writer from The Daily Beast, Buzz Bissinger,
actually called for Piers Morgan to “pop” Alex
Jones with a semi-automatic rifle. The daughter
of Ambassador and former presidential candidate
Jon Huntsman, Abby Huntsman, laughed at the
suggestion, and stated she’d like to see it.
BUZZ BISSINGER: I mean, I agree with you. I
think the purchase of guns went up after Sandy
Hook. Look, it is pathetic. It is ridiculous that
you are allowed -- I don’t care what the justifi-
cation is -- that you are allowed in this country
to own a semi-automatic weapon, much less a
handgun. But what do you need a semi-auto-
matic weapon for? The only reason I think you
need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a box-
ing match, show up with a semi-automatic that
you got legally, and pop him.
ABBY HUNTSMAN: I would love to see that, in
uniform.
PIERS MORGAN: I’ll borrow my brother’s uniform.
They openly celebrated their fantasy about shooting
Alex Jones because they disagreed with his gun posi-
tion, dubbing him a ‘bully.’
Similar outrageous and hypocritical threats were
circulated on Twitter and other social media plat-
forms after Sandy Hook, with numerous people call-
ing for the death of the president of the NRA, as well
as their supporters.
CNN and the other cable news networks are trans-
parent mirrors for the establishment line. They are
corporately owned by a tiny group of wealthy hands,
and readily, obediently spouting state propaganda
messages — official positions on how to think, framed
language to deceive the masses about news events and
program the people to accept greater government con-
trol over our lives for nearly every problem in society.
Morgan, in tandem with CNN, the Brady Center, the
White House and other gun control advocates, willing-
ly playing upon heartstrings as a psychological trigger
to accept their argument.
It was part of a response to an entire media cam-
paign to convince the American people to give up their
rights as a supposed solution to a school shooting cri-
sis. The White House and the talking heads had been
steadily lecturing, steadily imposing guilt . The theme
was consistent.
“..And just really brainwash people about guns.”
The suggestion comes from a 1995 press conference
with now-Attorney General Eric Holder.
He literally advocated a campaign to alter the public’s
opinion on guns through repeated messaging. And now
they are officially doing it, under executive order. Au-
thorized, not by Congress, but by the President, the ex-
ecutive brain, ordered specifically NOT infringe upon
the 2nd Amendment, ordering a propaganda campaign
to brainwash the public into accepting gun control, and
institute Soviet-style, politically-defined classifications
under “mental health” pretenses to determine whether
or not Americans are eligible to possess arms.
Former White House Chief of Staff, one of Obama’s
real running mates in the debates of his day, Rahm
Emanuel had famously quipped, “Never let a good cri-
sis go to waste.” He clarified the statement, continu-
ing, “And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do
things you think you could not do before.”
It sets the tone for the whole crowd, and their read-
iness to advance their agenda on the back of tragedy.
The Obama crowd had always said they’d sneak in
gun control “under the radar.” In the wake of tragedy,
they have seemed giddy, exploitative of the tragedy.
Almost glad it happened. Obama shed fake tears and

28 www.infowars.com
later released a emotional photo supposedly taken at
the time he was given news of the Sandy Hook massa-
cre to score political points from the deaths at the hand
of a madman.
Piers Morgan, an avid fueler of flame wars on forums
like Twitter, mocked his attackers, bitterly stating:
“I’m being accused of ‘standing on the graves of dead
Sandy Hook children’ – if that’s what it takes to get ac-
tion, so be it. #GunControlNow,” tweeted Morgan.
Piers Morgan had also responded to a tweet accusing
him of being gleeful: Tim Jones wrote, from @coelkhn-
tr, “@piersmorgan don’t think youre jumping on the
bandwagon I think you are somewhat gleeful that a
tragedy happened to help you push your cause.”
Morgan replied to the tweet, sarcastically quipping:
“Of course I am, you moron “
Piers Morgan’s upper hand is his prowess for tabloid
journalism. At the Daily Mirror and papers he’s editing,
Morgan specialized in seizing upon controversy, scan-
dalizing celebrity lives and sensationalizing politics.
Allegations mounted in the phone hacking scandal that
implicated Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World and
the Daily Mirror.
JONES: Why don’t you tell folks -- yes, you fled
here. Why don’t you go back and face the charges
with the hacking scandal?
MORGAN: Answer this question. How many guns --
JONES: Why did you get fired from “The Daily
Mirror” for putting out fake stories?
MORGAN: How --
JONES: You’re a hatchet man of the new world
order. You’re a hatchet man. And I want to say
this right here, you think you’re a tough guy?
Have me back with a boxing ring in here, and
I’ll wear red, white, and blue, and you can wear
your jolly roger.
Piers Morgan can treat the constitutional guarantee
of the right to bear arms as a tabloid subject, and has
repeatedly done so, but it doesn’t mean anyone has to
accept it.. He has smeared guests defending gun own-
ership,
President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden an-
nounced their gun control measures, enacted outside of
law through 23 executive orders without going through
Congress, by exhibiting children on stage who’d writ-
ten him letters asking him to do something about the
guns. As Obama sucker-punched the 2nd Amendment,
he high-fived the naïve children, who obviously didn’t
fully understand what they were part of.
Clinton had done the same in support of his push for
an assault weapons ban. He took his disarmament cam-
paign to MTV, the channel dedicated to bombarding
impressionable teens and immature adults with edgy
images, and told them that Americans had too many
rights and couldn’t be trusted.
“When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a
fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights,
giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was
assumed that Americans who had that freedom would
use it responsibly .... When personal freedom is being
abused, you have to move to limit it,” Bill Clinton, In-
terview on MTV’s “Enough is Enough” Forum.
April 19, 1994
The date, April 19, was not insignificant. It is the day
that a band of militiamen just outside of the city of
Boston, stood up to an attempt by British soldiers to
disarm them on that date in 1775 and started a revo-
lution to declare themselves free Americans, entitled
to self-rule, rather than subject British colonialists, not
worthy of representation in their own rule.
April 19 was also that the date that, one year after
Clinton’s MTV appearance, a false flag attack known as
the Oklahoma City bombing was perpetrated against a
federal building in order to demonize constitutionalists,
gun advocates and much of heartland America as anal-
ogous with domestic terrorists and child murderers. A
deliberate portrait was painted of Timothy McVeigh as
a lone bomber, who worked in tandem with accomplice
Terry Nichols, ignoring a mountain of evidence of second
suspects on the scene with McVeigh, dozens of witnesses
to others involved and a clear pattern of complicity with
the ATF and other official agencies.
April 19 had also been, in 1993, the year before Clin-
ton’s MTV speech about American’s “radical” freedoms,
the date that the FBI, ATF, et al. broke their siege with
the Branch Davidian “compound” and murdered wom-
en and children and men living inside.
MORGAN: You’ve got to try and answer some of
the questions, right? Here is my issue for you.
Why do people need -- civilians need an AR- 15
type assault weapon? Why --
[…]
JONES: They need them to protect us from the
number one killer in history. Government of
the 20th century university study out of Hawaii
killed -- two million people. It’s called democide.
Google it, folks.
MORGAN: Do you believe everyone in America
-- should everyone in America --
JONES: Yes. Yes.
MORGAN: -- therefore have an AR-15 if they
want one?
JONES: Statistically, where there’s more guns,
there’s lower crime.

TASERS FOR TORTURE
written by STEVE WATSON
LICESTATEPOLICESTATEPO
T
he expanding police state, in all its various sickening forms, may
be the most telling sign of our dire times. Has our ailing society
become so afflicted by apathy that no one seems to notice or care
that every law-abiding citizen is being treated as a potential crim-
inal, and is, more often than not, guilty until proven innocent?
Inthenameofpublicsafety,institutionsliketheTSAandseveralstate
and local police infect our lives with not-so-subtle “obedience training,” coercing
thegeneralpublictoobeyordersatallcosts,orbemetwithbruteforce.Likeama-
licious virus overcoming its host victim, this infectious plague of compelling obe-
dience through force is running its course through the veins of America, pump-
ing the malady of unquestionable submission through to the rest of the world.
The old adage “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” perhaps has
neverbeenbetterpersonifiedthanbysomeoftoday’sstateandlocalpoliceforces,the
very same oath-sworn men and women who patrol our cities and neighborhoods,
and our good friends the TSA, who leave no American traveler’s body untouched.
C
ops and attorneys have argued in an
ongoing lawsuit that the use of a taser
at point blank range on a handcuffed
woman does not constitute assault with
dangerous weapon and “that the use of a
taser is not unconstitutional when used
to compel obedience by inmates.”
The arguments were made as part of a motion to
dismiss charges against an Oklahoma police officer
in a civil suit brought by Nakina Williams following
an incident in June.
Officer Sterling Taylor-Santino was filmed tasering
Williams in the chest at point blank range while she
was already under custody with her hands cuffed be-
hind her back at the Pittsburg County Jail.
Following the incident, Williams was charged with
felony assault and battery on a police officer, and ex-
pectorating on a police officer, as well as public intox-
ication. She was given a 10-year suspended sentence.
In October, officer Taylor was charged with felony
assault and battery against Williams who filed suit,
seeking over $2 million in damages.
The court records, obtained by the McAlester News
Capital, show that Williams’ attorneys contend that
the officer violated her civil and constitutional rights.
“The force used by Taylor, in shooting Williams
with a taser while she was handcuffed, constitutes
an unreasonable and excessive use of force in viola-
tion of (her) constitutional rights as guaranteed by
the United States Constitution and Amendments,”
the suit alleges.
Officer Taylor’s attorney contends that he “used the
taser in the manner in which (it) was intended to be
used” and that the information in Williams’ case does
not prove that a taser is a dangerous weapon.
Taylor’s motion also makes the claim that the use
of the weapon in such a fashion does not violate con-
stitutional rights because he was trained as a police
officer that it was within the law to use the weapon
to control a dangerous or violent subject.
Because Williams spat at Taylor, he was within his
rights to use the taser, as he was attempting to “con-
trol her behavior,” rather than purposefully injure
her, argues the attorney.
“While it can certainly be argued that (Taylor) was
in error as to whether this was an appropriate cir-
cumstance to deploy the taser, the motion states,
“There is no evidence that he acted with an intent to
injure any person.”
Williams’ lawsuit also states that when officer
Taylor stopped tasing her, he yanked out the barbs,
which were embedded in her left breast, leaving scar-
ring. Normally officers are required to take the sus-
pect to a hospital to remove the barbs.

36 www.infowars.com
T
wo Texas women have filed a federal suit
against two state troopers and their de-
partment head after being forced to un-
dergo a humiliating “roadside body cavity
search” during a routine traffic stop in July
2012.
According to NBC DFW, “The lawsuit further alleges
that [trooper Kelley] Helleson performed searches on
both women, touching the anus and vagina of both,
without changing the latex gloves between searches.”
Footage of the incident was caught by one of the troop-
er’s dash-cams and shows in horrific detail how the two
women, Angel Dobbs, 38, and her niece, Ashley Dobbs,
24, were made to submit to invasive grope-downs in full
view of passing motorists.
The stop begins, innocently enough, with trooper
David Farrell pulling the two ladies over for allegedly
throwing cigarette butts out of their windows, which
they denied.
Afterwards, the state trooper, is heard radioing a fe-
male officer requesting her assistance with a search he
intended to perform.
The officer returns to their car and, out of nowhere,
asks the two women, “How much marijuana is in that
car? And don’t lie to me,” to which a woman replies, “I
don’t smoke marijuana.” The initial exchange was tran-
scribed by NBC:
Farrell: How much marijuana is in that car?
And don’t lie to me.
Angel Dobbs: I don’t smoke marijuana.
Farrell: OK, how much marijuana is in that car?
That’s my question.
Dobbs: I swear to God, I don’t smoke marijuana.
Farrell: I’m not asking you if you smoke it.
Dobbs: I don’t think there is any marijuana in
that car.
Farrell: OK, when was the last time somebody
smoked marijuana in that car?
Dobbs: I honestly don’t know. It’s my boyfriend’s
car. So, I just borrowed it.
Farrell: There’s an odor of marijuana coming
from the car and that’s why I’ve got to talk to you
further about it. Um, and the more upfront you
are the better it’s going to go for you. So, you’re
telling me there’s no marijuana in that car?
Dobbs: To the best of my knowledge, no there
is not.
Farrell: Is there anything hidden on your person?
Dobbs: On my person?
Farrell: On your person, in your shoes, in
your underwear?
Dobbs: No. I feel like I’m being treated like a
criminal right now. What’s going on?
Farrell: I’ve got a female Trooper up the road,
she’s going to come down here and we’re just go-
ing to check a little bit more.
When the female officer arrives, Farrell relays that
the women “are both acting real weird” and singles out
the driver, Angel, as needing the search, saying, “There
may be a dimesack in there or something, but I’m still
gonna search it.”
Next, the female trooper, Kelley Helleson, is seen put-
ting the all-too-familiar blue gloves on before descend-
ing down the pants of the two accused drug smugglers,
while Farrell searches their car.
The illegal searches failed to produce any marijuana,
but that didn’t stop Farrell from performing a field sobri-
ety test, which Dobbs passed.
The searches subsequently left a painful reminder of
the incident. “Angel Dobbs said Helleson irritated an
anal cyst she suffers from during the search, causing
her ‘severe and continuing pain and discomfort,’” re-
ported the Daily Mail.
According to the Dallas Morning News, the lawsuit al-
leges “Angel Dobbs was overwhelmed with emotion and
a feeling of helplessness and reacted stating that Helleson
had just violated her in a most horrific manner.”
“The suit also says Helleson failed to properly ex-
plain the extent of the search, telling Angel Dobbs, 38,
‘not to worry about’ why she was putting on blue latex
gloves,” according to Austin’s KVUE News.
The lawsuit apparently also stops just short of ac-
cusing Farrell of being a thief: “The lawsuit goes on
to say that a bottle of prescribed Hydrocodone was
missing from Dobbs’ car and purse after the search.
The women returned to the scene of the traffic stop
the next day to search for the medication, but it was
nowhere to be found.”
Steven McCraw, the director of the Department of
Public Safety, is also named in the lawsuit for failing
to address a “long standing pattern of police miscon-
duct involving unlawful strip searches, cavity search-
es and the like…”
One of the women’s attorneys, Charles Soechting,
Jr., says the troopers “failed the citizens of Texas,”
and that a Class C Misdemeanor “does not justify any
type of pat down, let alone an invasive search of cav-
ities of women.”
The Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, in ad-
dition to a grand jury hearing in January, has also
forwarded the case to their public integrity division,
which investigates public servants who commit crimes
under the “characterization” of their job.
Texas DPS did not immediately respond to Infowars’
media request at the time of publishing.
Adan Salazar is currently the associate editor at
Infowars.com, writes often for Infowars Magazine
and is an avid civil rights and due process advocate.
2 GIRLS, 1 GLOVE
writtenby ADANSALAZAR
The lawsuit also claims that Taylor lied on his
report of the incident.
“In his ‘use of force report,’ (Mr Taylor-Santino)
sought to cover up and/or conceal his actions…
by omitting that (Ms. Williams) was handcuffed
when she was shot with the taser,” the suit alleges.
“As a result, he was found to have acted ‘within
policy’ by police department officials.”
The lawsuit also alleges that Taylor has a “vi-
olent work history,” and that a “disproportionate
number” of “allegations of excessive force” have
been filed against him.
According to the McAlester police department,
officer Taylor has been put on desk duty until the
court proceedings are over.
As we have highlighted many times, tasers are
designed to be used in emergency situations only,
as a last resort before lethal force.
Despite Taser International’s claims to the con-
trary, numerous studies over recent years have
proven that taser stun guns can cause heart prob-
lems and even induce sudden and lethal cardiac
arrest.
Recently, two police officers in Texas tasered
a man who was having a seizure, causing the
50-year-old to suffer a heart attack and permanent
brain damage. The cops were so ill equipped to
deal with the situation, that they broke out tasers
and shocked a man who was already convulsing
on the ground.
It took paramedics 11 minutes to revive the man
and bring back his pulse. It is a miracle he is still
alive, though he will now have to live with severe
disabilities for the rest of his life.
In November it was revealed that a Los Angeles
woman who was stopped by police had a heart at-
tack and almost died after the officers tasered her
when she refused to allow them to search through
her personal belongings.
It is endless amounts of these kind of incidents
that show cops are not being trained to use tasers
only in situations when they are threatened. They
are using the weapons on anyone who does not
immediately respond to orders, and now even con-
tending that it is constitutional to force obedience
with a taser.

ALEX JONES DETAINED BY THE TSA AT AUSTIN-BERGSTROM AIRPORT AND THREATENED
WITH ARREST FOR REFUSING TO TAKE OFF HIS SHOES AT A SECURITY CHECKPOINT.
adio talk show host and ardent Homeland Se-
curity critic Alex Jones was detained by the
TSA at Austin-Bergstrom airport and threat-
ened with arrest for refusing to take off his
shoes at a security checkpoint.
Traveling to New York to appear on CNN’s Piers Mor-
gan Tonight, Jones had already showed his ID as he
approached the metal detector. He and colleague Rob
Dew noticed that a large number of people across all
age ranges were not removing their shoes before walk-
ing through the metal detector. The x-ray body scanners
were not in use.
As soon as he approached security, Jones was ad-
dressed by a TSA screener who said, “Hello Mr. Jones,”
indicating that she knew who he was, and immediately
ordered him to remove his shoes.
When Jones refused, citing the fact that many others
had not removed their shoes, the TSA screener claimed
that only people under 12 and over 75 were not man-
dated to remove footwear under TSA policy.
When Jones contested the point, arguing that numer-
ous travelers in their 40’s had not removed their shoes,
other TSA agents ordered him to take off his shoes, be-
fore Jones was approached by a police officer who im-
mediately got in his face and started threatening him
with arrest.
Despite Jones’ protests that he was clearly being dis-
criminated against because he was a known critic of the
TSA (the rest of the TSA screeners also knew him by
name), the officer growled, “Take your damn shoes off
or I am gonna arrest you.”
Not even giving Jones the option to leave the airport,
the cop continued to threaten him with arrest and pre-
vent him from flying as the radio host threatened to file
a lawsuit for civil rights violations.
One of Jones’ primary concerns regarding the removal
of shoes was the fact that he had caught athletes foot
from that very process in another airport before and he
now carries a spare pair of socks to change into when he
R
TSA DISCRIMINATION
writtenby PAULJOSEPHWATSON
JONES'
PRIMARY
CONCERNS
REGARDING
THE
REMOVAL
OF
SHOES
WAS
THE
FACT
THAT
HE
CAUGHT
ATHLETES
FOOT
ALEX JONES WAS DETAINED BY THE TSA AT AUSTIN-BERGSTROM AIRPORT AND THREATENED
WITH ARREST FOR REFUSING TO TAKE OFF HIS SHOES AT A SECURITY CHECKPOINT.

boards an aircraft. Jones emphasized that he was not a
“clean freak” but that he had never encountered such
issues before having to take his shoes off at TSA security.
Eventually agreeing to remove his shoes, Jones then
walked towards the metal detector as the cop leaned
over to talk to the TSA agents. After Jones had already
passed through the metal detector, a “beep” sounded
and TSA agents began laughing. Jones later said it was
obvious that TSA screeners had set the metal detector
off themselves, possibly by order of the officer, so that
they could harass Jones further. Other travelers have
reported that TSA agents routinely set off the metal de-
tector themselves in order to manufacture a justification
for further harassment.
The officer continued to detain Jones as he talked to
other cops. Despite his seemingly wanting to take fur-
ther action, TSA management, presumably aware of the
potential scandal that could ensue, said they were hap-
py to let Jones go on his way.
Jones is now considering a civil rights lawsuit against
the TSA for discrimination. As we have previously docu-
mented, journalists critical of the TSA are routinely tar-
geted for harassment.
CNN reporter Drew Griffin was put on a TSA watch
list immediately after he filed reports critical of the or-
ganization back in 2008. Conservative radio host and
Breitbart Editor Dana Loesch is also habitually groped
by TSA screeners whenever she travels.
Following the national opt out day protest in 2010, the
TSA was forced to admit that it had kept records on Alex
Jones and Matt Drudge, another prominent TSA critic,
but refused to release details even after a FOIA request
by former Congressman Bob Barr.
Political figures who have been critical of the TSA
such as Rand Paul and Ron Paul have also been sin-
gled out for harassment and interrogation by the fed-
eral agency.
“TAKE YOUR
DAMN SHOES
OFF, OR I AM
GONNA
ARREST
YOU.”

W
hen everybody is diagnosed with a mental
disorder, gun permits will be a thing of the
past. Take that seriously.
At a presidential debate, Obama was asked about
achieving gun control. He said, “Enforce the laws we’ve
already got. Make sure we are keeping the guns out of
the hands of criminals...[and] those who are mentally
ill.” http://psychcentral.com
In case you’ve been sleeping in a cave for the past
few years, the U.S. government is doing everything it
can to create more categories of crimes, and the psy-
chiatrists are expanding the list of (fictional but en-
forceable) mental disorders, as they also relentlessly
promote “more diagnosis and treatment.”
Some estimates state 20-25 percent of the U.S. pop-
ulation is suffering from a mental disorder. These are
absurd and cooked figures, for several reasons, but it
doesn’t matter. What matters is that huge numbers of
people can be arbitrarily labeled as such.
So legally owning or not owning a gun may soon hinge
on a broader definition of “mentally ill,” changed to “hav-
ing been diagnosed with a mental disorder,” because that
is one back-door way to execute a massive gun ban.
Simply put: diagnose everybody and his brother with
a mental disorder, and then assert that any such diag-
nosis bars a person from obtaining a gun permit.
Psychiatry, in addition to destroying lives through tox-
ic drugs, becomes a political instrument for gun control.
In the July editions of both Psychology Today and
The Psychiatric Times, the same editorial, written by
Dr. Allen Frances, America’s most influential psychia-
trist, spelled out a clear position:
“Guns do kill people and the number of people
depends on the number of guns and the number of
rounds they can fire in a given period of time.”
Of course, no mention is made of the psychiatric
drugs that induce violence and murder.
Dr. Frances sums up his unequivocal position: “We re-
ally have only two choices...accept mass murder as part
of the American way of life, or...get in line with rest of
the civilized world and adopt sane gun control policies.”
I thought I would explore the issue of mental illness
from a slightly different perspective, however: WHY
ARE FANATICAL GUN GRABBERS PSYCHOTIC?
What is the nature of THEIR mental
disorder?
In the wake of the Newtown massacre, the gun-con-
trol forces are on the march. Ban this, ban that, go after
the Doomsday preppers and bitter clingers.
The gun grabbers don’t respond to the obvious
charge that, when honest people have weapons for
self-defense, they can, in fact, defend themselves and
stave off crime, harm, and death. This point doesn’t
make a dent.
Neither does arguing Second Amendment. Neither
does painting a picture of a society in which the only
people who have guns are the government and crim-
inals. The gun grabbers seem to like that picture. At
least theoretically.
Here are a few truths you can take to
the bank:
First Point:
If the media in this country (which are notoriously
anti-gun) made a big deal out of every case in which an
armed citizen successfully defended his home against
a violent intruder, and made every such person a hero,
we would have a different mood in America. Every-
body would see the sense in gun ownership.
Example:
In the case of the Newtown killings, the media would
be saying, “Now here is a tragic case in which no one
in the school was carrying a weapon.” And everybody
would see the sense and the truth of that.
So really, it’s matter of what the media cover and
how they cover it, and what they ignore. That’s all it is.
It isn’t anything else. In other words, they’re running
a psyop.
Second Point:
The government doesn’t want private citizens to own
and carry guns because that would diminish the role
of government.
writtenby JONRAPPOPORT
DISARMAMENT PLAN: FIRST LABEL EVERYONE WITH A MENTAL DISORDER; THEN USE THAT TO TAKE THEIR GUNS

42 www.infowars.com
“ELITESWANTTO CONTINUETO OWN AMERICA.THEYWANTTO HAVE SWAYOVERTHE LAND
AND RESOURCES AND PEOPLE AND MONEY. THEIR MINIONS AND AGENTS ARE THE OFFI-
CIAL PEOPLEWITHWEAPONS.THAT’STHEWAYITWORKS. ITHASTO BE A ONE-SIDED GAME.
IF MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS OWNED GUNS AND KNEW
HOWTO USETHEM,THETIN GODSWOULDN’TBE ABLETO SLEEPWELL ATNIGHT.”
lous little sissy in two hours, that’s a threat. Suddenly,
a private citizen is miles ahead of the FDA (and the
drug companies). No, no, no.
Example 4:
If home schoolers educate their kids better than
government-run schools do, that’s another sore point.
That’s bad. It exposes the government factories that
manufacture illiterate children.
Third point:
If enough citizens were well-armed, it would take a
full-scale federal invasion to overcome them in case of,
oh, secession from the federalized United States.
The feds, of course, would win in the long run, if
they killed enough people, but the publicity would be
devastating to the government. Think Waco multiplied
by a thousand or a million.
And in the process, word would get out about these
well-armed private citizens’ grievances against the
central government. The grievances would make sense
to a lot of people watching the carnage unfold. Can’t
have that. No, no, no.
Fourth point:
A lot of people in this country grow up thinking they
have to take care of other people. That’s really all they
know how to do. This goes far beyond any understand-
able humane impulse.
This is meddling. It’s moving in on other people’s
private business. The meddlers turn out to be vicious
little scum. Well, where else are they going to be able
to exercise these cheap impulses, other than in gov-
ernment jobs?
The corollary to this is: “I’m the hero.
I protect you. I...you what? You protect-
The people in charge hate it when private citizens
take over a self-appointed government function. It’s in-
sulting. It’s people saying to the government, “We don’t
need you.” It’s proof that government acts in many,
many ways that are intrusive and preemptive.
Example 1:
“No need to worry, officer, I caught the thief as he
was leaving the liquor store. I pulled my weapon and
put him down on the ground and cuffed him. He’s in
the back of my car.”
No, no, no. no. The government must be in charge of
everything that pertains to showing or using a gun. No
outsiders allowed.
“Yes, Mrs. Smith, I’m sorry we’re late, and I’m sorry
you husband was beaten to a pulp by that intruder,
but we have other crimes to process. We have to man
speed-traps. It’s better that your husband didn’t have
a gun, let me assure you. Why? It just is. Now, let me
call an ambulance. I hope they get him to the hospital
in time.”
Example 2:
Imagine what the response would be if you asked an
IRS executive what he thought about a flat consumer
tax on bought goods that would replace the whole IRS
code.
We’re talking about government jobs here. Jobs and
money and pensions. Private citizens must not do what
the government does.
Example 3:
In case you hadn’t noticed, this spills over into the
health field. The FDA certifies, as safe and effective, every
(poisonous) medical drug before it can be prescribed for
public use. The FDA therefore controls drug treatment.
If somebody comes along and cooks up, in his kitch-
en, an herbal brew that knocks out the flu like a ridicu-
WHEN EVERYBODY IS DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL DISORDER, GUN

ed yourself? No, you’re not allowed to
do that, because then I can’t be a hero.
You’re supposed to be the helpless citi-
zen on my watch. If I can leap tall build-
ings, you have to be grounded. Other-
wise, my life is in vain.”
Fifth point:
Elites want to continue to own America. They
want to have sway over the land and resources and
people and money. Their minions and agents are
the official people with weapons. That’s the way it
works. It has to be a one-sided game. If millions and
millions and millions of private citizens owned guns
and knew how to use them, the tin gods wouldn’t be
able to sleep well at night.
Sixth point:
So-called liberals hate people who own guns. For
them, guns are symbols of everything else they hate.
Religion, land ownership, property rights, fences,
and boundaries. Unless, of course, those fences de-
fine the liberals’ land.
Corollary: Many conservatives hate people who
own guns, too, when they perceive those people
are ready to decentralize power away from an
overarching corporate-government control- nexus.
These are all elements of a true psychosis. It needs
to be treated.
Short of mandatory sedatives, or a sudden at-
tack on a lonely street at night by armed thugs, I
recommend mandatory gun ownership for every
non-felon adult in the U.S. This would solve the
problem expeditiously.
I especially want to see all members of Congress
packing heat in their chambers. If, once in a while,
there is a shooting, well, we can catch it on C-Span. It
won’t be lost to history.
I also want to see Chris Matthews in his MSNBC stu-
dio with a .45 strapped to his leg, the one that tingles.
There is one caveat to my proposal. In order to cre-
ate a fully armed population, that population must be
responsible, which is to say they must understand invi-
olable private property rights. They don’t have to own
property, but they have to know that such a thing as
private property exists. Why? Because property is one of
the things an armed citizen has a right to defend.
Unfortunately, we’re losing the concept of private
property like water leaking out of a battered rowboat.
It’s part of government’s plan, because government
wants to own everything that isn’t already nailed down
by its partner mega-corporations.
And government’s thinking goes this way: “Since we
own everything, our cops defend it with guns; there
is no reason for private armed citizens to defend it; it
isn’t theirs.”
Meanwhile, I have to get going. I just got a message that
three armed women teachers shot a guy named Adam
Lanza in a classroom. I’m heading over to check it out.
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX RE-
VEALED, Jon was a candidate for a U.S. Congressional
seat in the 29th District of California; has been nominat-
ed for a Pulitzer Prize; worked as an investigative report-
er for 30 years, writing on politics, medicine and health
for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern
and other newspapers and magazines in the U.S. and Eu-
rope; and has delivered lectures and seminars on global
politics, health, logic and creative power to audiences
around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at
www.nomorefakenews.com.
PERMITS WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST. TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY.

46 www.infowars.com
ollowing his debate with CNN’s
Piers Morgan this week, Alex
Jones became the number one
trend on Twitter. The quote above
was seized upon and retweeted by
many insinuating that Alex is “cra-
zy” for referring to prescription an-
tidepressants and other psychotro-
pic medications as “suicide pills”
and “mass murder pills.”
But can Alex’s comment be so easily dismissed?
Americans consume more psychotropic drugs than
any other country in the world.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), prescriptions for antidepressants
have risen in this country by 400 percent since 1988.
New research was based on old research which showed
that 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 take
antidepressants, otherwise known as Selective Sero-
tonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). Antidepressants
were ranked the number one most common prescrip-
tion for all adults age 18-44, and 60 percent of Amer-
icans who take SSRIs stay on them for more than two
years. At the start of the decade, the fasting growing
class of antidepressant users was preschoolers.
Antidepressants and other psychotropics are pre-
scribed “on-label” — or uses approved by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) — for psychiatric issues
such as depression, anxiety and personality disorders
(“off-label” use for issues like hyperactivity and sex-
ual disorders is obviously not regulated). Side effects
of these drugs can include confusion, hallucinations,
anxiety, agitation, mood swings, impulse-control dis-
order, paranoia, psychosis and hostility.
A Canadian judge even ruled that SSRIs can cause
children to commit murder when he found that Prozac
was largely responsible for a 15-year-old stabbing one
of his closest friends.
This has become such a well-known fact that in
2007 the FDA voted to update the required “black
box warning” on all prescription antidepressants
“to include warnings about increased risks of suicid-
al thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in
young adults ages 18 to 24 during initial treatment.”
“Pooled analyses of short-term place-
bo-controlled trials of antidepressant
drugs (SSRIs and others) showed that
these drugs increase the risk of suicidal
thinking and behavior (suicidality) in
children, adolescents, and young adults
(ages 18 - 24) with major depressive
disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric
disorders.”
A black box warning is the most serious warning
the FDA can place on a prescription medication.
The FDA has also admitted that adverse reactions
to pharmaceuticals kill over 100,000 Americans each
year, and in 2009, the LA Times reported drug deaths
— primarily due to overdoses on prescription pain
and anxiety medications — even outnumbered traffic
accidents in the U.S.
Scientific studies abound. The number one cause
of death by injury in America is suicide according to
one, just as Alex told Piers Morgan. Military use of
psychiatric drugs skyrocketed to one in six accord-
ing to another. Suicide is now officially the number
one cause of U.S. active-duty soldier death, with
three times as many soldiers dying from suicide since
2001 than have died in the Afghanistan war. This
fact prompted veteran and clinical psychologist Bart
Billings to ask Congress for long-term studies into
a possible connection between the spike in military
SSRI prescriptions, and troops committing suicide in
record numbers.
It should also be noted that Associated Press con-
ducted a five-month investigation and found the
drinking water of at least 46 million Americans in 24
major metropolitan areas was already tainted with
pharmaceuticals. The report advises, “The federal
government does not regulate prescription drugs in
the water.” A 2010 study showed that shrimp living
in antidepressant-tainted coastal waters were exhib-
iting suicidal tendencies.
There is no way to even speculate the full psycho-
logical effect of these drugs’ widespread ingestion
in unknown amounts and strengths, by an unknow
population and in addition to the prescription drugs
many people are already taking.
The website SSRIStories.com has compiled a hor-
rifically long list of violent episodes including school
shootings, murders and suicides, and linked each
event to what anti-psychotic medication(s) the perpe-
trator was on or withdrawing from.
According to a data set of U.S. mass shootings
from 1982 to 2012 prepared by news website Mother
Jones, of 62 mass shootings carried out by 64 shoot-
ers, the majority of the shooters (41) were noted to
have signs of possible mental illness — the precise
kinds of mental illnesses that psychotropic medica-
tions are prescribed for. Seven more were listed as
“unclear” on mental illness status, but many in this
group reportedly family members or neighbors who
worried about mental health issues.
Infowars reported yesterday that, not only was
suspected Aurora mass shooter James Holmes under
psychiatric care, but police seized four prescription
medication bottles from his home after the shooting.
The odds at least one of these drugs was an antide-
pressant cannot be overlooked.
As David Kupelian reported for WND, there’s a
“giant, gaping hole” in the media’s reporting of the
Sandy Hook shooting: discussion of mass killers on
psychotropics.
“It is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of
school shootings and similar mass murders in our mod-
ern era were either on – or just recently coming off of
– psychiatric medications,” Kupelian wrote.
Newtown school shooting suspect Adam Lanza has
also been described as having a “personality disorder”
and a “mental illness,” phrases Mike Adams of Natural
News points out are typically used to describe people
who are prescribed psychotropic drugs.
So it should not surprise anyone that reports surfaced
shortly following the Newtown school shooting that
Lanza had been taking Fanapt, an anti-psychotic med-
ication that the FDA did not approve at first because
among other reasons, rather than inhibit psychotic be-
havior, the drug was actually found to induce it. (The
reference to Fanapt was later withdrawn altogether by
the news outlet that first reported it, citing the man
who claimed to be Lanza’s uncle and supplied the tip
might be an imposter.)
Natural News also reported on the untimely death of
prominent gun manufacturer John Noveske on Jan. 4,
2013. Just days before he died in a car wreck, Noveske
posted a lengthy list on his Facebook page of over 40 in-
cidents where primarily young people committed mass
murder and/or suicide; almost all of them were on psy-
chiatric medications.
Many of the killers Noveske listed were under the
age of 24; recall, young people fall in the category of
increased risk of antidepressant-induced suicidal ten-
dencies which prompted the FDA to require the updat-
Americans consume more
psychotropic drugs than any
other country in the world.F
According to the FDA
drug-labeling revisions: So is there a link between
mass shootings and
psychotropic medications?

Why The Tyrants Want Your Guns 6th Issue Infowars Magazine

Why The Tyrants Want Your Guns 6th Issue Infowars Magazine

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Why The Tyrants Want Your Guns 6th Issue Infowars Magazine

Similar to Why The Tyrants Want Your Guns 6th Issue Infowars Magazine (12)

More from infowarrior78

More from infowarrior78 (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Why The Tyrants Want Your Guns 6th Issue Infowars Magazine